Lulu-Briggs Loses Suit Against Stepmother On Firm’s Ownership

Justice Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the Accord Party governorship candidate in Rivers State, Chief Dumo Lulu-Briggs, seeking to void the decision of his late father, Chief O.B. Lulu-Briggs. to transfer his shares in Moni Pulo Limited to his wife, Dr Seinye Lulu-Briggs, his daughters and the O.B. Lulu-Briggs Foundation.

In a ruling on a preliminary objection raised by the defendants in the suit, Justice Omotosho  held that Dumo’s suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1481/2021, was the same as FHC/ABJ/CS/1576/2019, which was discontinued by Justice Taiwo Taiwo on September 30, 2021, and which is pending on appeal before the Court of Appeal.

The judge ruled that Dumo’s new suit, which was filed with three others, constituted an abuse of court processes and did not deserve further hearing by his court.

The first to fourth plaintiffs in the suit are Senibo Lulu-Briggs, Dumo Lulu-Briggs, Sofiri Lulu-Briggs, and Chima Onimin Lulu-Briggs.

RELATED

Oyo Gov’t Distributes Tablets, Teaching Aids To 18,000 Teachers

1 hour ago

Senate To Investigate Rising Flight Crew–Passenger Clashes

1 hour ago

The defendants are Mrs Seinye Lulu-Briggs, Incorporated Trustees of the O.B. Lulu-Briggs Foundation, Rachael Lulu-Briggs, Solate Ovundah-Akarolo, Moni Pulo Ltd and the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

The defendants had asked the court to consider having freely, unequivocally and fully transferred their entire shareholding to the late High Chief O. B. Lulu-Briggs in two settlements and having received consideration which the plaintiffs acknowledged as valuable and sufficient for such transfer ($3 million to Dumo Lulu-Briggs in 2003 and the other $5million to Dumo Lulu-Briggs, Senibo Lulu-Briggs and Sofiri Lulu-Briggs in 2004), whether the plaintiffs could rightly turn around to impugn the said share transfer.

They also asked the court whether the action is not statute-barred by the provision of Section 11 of the Limitation Act, having been filed 12 years after the date of the consent judgment on 18th May 2004.

They also asked the court to determine whether by the pendency of Appeal Nos. CA/ABJ/CV/859/ 2021, CA/ABJ/CV/681/2021 and CA/ABJ/CV/29/2022, the suit did not constitute a gross abuse of the process of the court.

The defendants also urged the court to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Justice Omotosho, in his ruling, held, “I hold without hesitation that filing a fresh suit on a subject between parties on appeal is an abuse of court process.

“The new suit, as in the instant suit, is nothing than to overreach and make the outcome of the pending appeal nugatory…Filing this instant suit on the same subject matter and reliefs and against the same parties is vexatious and nothing more than a gross abuse of the process of the Court.”

Justice Omotosho further agreed with the argument of the first to fifth defendants that the suit was an abuse of the court proce